Special Counsel John Durham has completed his probe into the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation which morphed into the broader Trump-Russia probe by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The report minced no words in its criticism of the FBI and DOJ:

"Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report," the report said.

In When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives, Heather Mac Donald addresses the causes of racial disparities in outcomes in education, culture, and other areas. She expertly and with exhaustive research makes the case that the true cause of outcome disparities is not what has become a conventional wisdom of racism, but rather, the gap in academic skills and educational opportunities between black and white Americans.

Mac Donald traces the beginning of the racism conventional wisdom to the 1971 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power. Prior to Griggs, only deliberate and intentional discrimination stated a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similar statutes. In Griggs, the Court adopted a disparate impact theory, finding for the first time that measuring outcomes rather than intent could create liability for discrimination. As Mac Donald reports, disparate impact analysis now pervades not just the law, but all of culture. Indeed, she writes, “The concept of disparate impact is destroying America’s core institutions in the name of inviting invented racism.”

Yesterday’s Senate Judiciary “Supreme Court Ethics Reform” hearing had three Senators who took the spotlight, representing the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The Good

The good was Republican Senator John Kennedy who totally destroyed Democrat witness Kedric Payne of the Campaign Legal Center. 

Senator Kennedy slams the biased Twitter posts of a key witness, who called some justices "politicians in robes who thrive in a system where access and influence are for sale" and said Chief Justice John Roberts was "a disgrace." pic.twitter.com/6DLEXqf1oW

— The Article III Project (A3P) (@Article3Project) May 2, 2023

Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin, the Democrat Party, and their media sycophants have been trying to build a case against Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices leading up to Durbin’s "Supreme Court Ethics Reform" hearing on Tuesday. This is part of the Democrats' long term effort to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, but the reality is it may be undermining Durbin’s legitimacy. 

First off, it is worth noting that all nine Supreme Court Justices pushed back against the Durbin’s efforts:

All nine justices, in a rare step, on Tuesday released a joint statement reaffirming their voluntary adherence to a general code of conduct but rebutting proposals for independent oversight, mandatory compliance with ethics rules and greater transparency in cases of recusal.

The implication, though not expressly stated, is that the court unanimously rejects legislation proposed by Democrats seeking to impose on the justices the same ethics obligations applied to all other federal judges. . . .

"If the full Court or any subset of the Court were to review the recusal decisions of individual justices," they wrote, "it would create an undesirable situation in which the Court could affect the outcome of a case by selecting who among its members may participate."

Later, they added that public disclosure of the basis for recusal could "encourage strategic behavior by lawyers who may seek to prompt recusals in future cases" by framing them a certain way in an attempt to disqualify a particular member of the court.

Last week was a great example of the media bias in Election Integrity.  A big story was not reported and a non-story was promoted.  First, what should have been big news:

“[Virginia Department of Elections’] examined its data sharing relationship with the Virginia Department of Health. After ELECT requested a review of all VDH death records going back to 1960, VDH discovered death records that had not been previously shared with ELECT. After additional data analysis by ELECT staff, 18,990 records of registered voters were identified and will be sent to local registrars for processing in the coming week.  As a result of these findings and process improvements, citizens can expect to see a significant number of names removed from Virginia’s voter rolls.

As a few conservative outlets like RedState, who reported on this, concluded:

The change seems especially important, given a major Department of Elections confession. Apparently, administrators haven’t been sticklers for accuracy.  . . .

It would certainly be nice if only those who are alive could vote. Perhaps it would lessen concerns that American voting is in a state south of perfect integrity.

A new report from The Heritage Foundation once again proves that the Left's "voter suppression" narrative is a myth. The report, entitled "The Latest Election Data Show—Once Again—That 'Voter Suppression' Claim Is Just Propaganda," explores how data over several election cycles illustrates that increased voter integrity measures leads to greater confidence in the election system, and in turn, increases voter turnout. Voter ID laws are a perfect example of this trend:

Earlier this week, RNLA highlighted Senate Democrats' scheme to "temporarily" replace Senator Dianne Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee.

Republicans must come together and vote against the Democrats' scheme to "temporarily" replace Senator Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee. The future of the federal judiciary is at stake. https://t.co/nSv2nFmLqu

— RNLA ⚖️ (@TheRepLawyer) April 17, 2023

One of the practical consequences if this scheme succeeds is that Democrats will once again have the ability to ram radical and/or disqualified judicial nominees through the Committee. Below are some of the most radical and disqualified nominees currently pending before the Senate.

Democrat Congressman Ro Khanna made waves last week when he publicly said what most Democrats (and everyone else for that matter) have been thinking for a long time: Senator Dianne Feinstein is no longer fit to serve in the U.S. Senate.

It’s time for @SenFeinstein to resign. We need to put the country ahead of personal loyalty. While she has had a lifetime of public service, it is obvious she can no longer fulfill her duties. Not speaking out undermines our credibility as elected representatives of the people.

— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) April 12, 2023

Senator Feinstein's failure to resign has consequences, deadlocking controversial judicial nominations in the Senate Judiciary Committee on which she serves. Without Feinstein's vote, nominees can only proceed with bipartisan support—effectively blocking the Biden Administration's most extreme and unqualified nominees.  

MEET Best-Selling Author and Renowned Journalist James Rosen at RNLA's 2023 National Policy Conference

Register Here for the Conference

In Scalia: Rise to Greatness, 1936 to 1986, James Rosen writes an incredible biography of Justice Antonin Scalia’s first fifty years of life up until his ascension to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986. Rosen will describe Scalia’s tenure on the court in the second volume.

Earlier this week, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan issued a subpoena to FBI Director Christopher Wray regarding allegations that the Bureau "sought to use local religious organizations as 'new avenues for tripwire and source development.'"

🚨 #BREAKING: We now know the FBI, relying on information derived from at least one 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 employee, sought to use local religious organizations as “new avenues for tripwire and source development.” pic.twitter.com/97veIGtvq4

— Weaponization Committee (@Weaponization) April 10, 2023